The Multi Role Vehicle (Protected)

The Specialist and Logistic Project Team (SLV PT) is the MOD authority following the Multi Role Vehicle (Protected) requirement, which is, in itself, the name with which the cancelled Operational Utility Vehicle System (OUVS) has been resurrected. 

OUVS was a long-running programme (it was launched in 2003) which looked at many different vehicles for finding a replacement for vehicles such as Land Rover and Pinzgauers, RB44s and others. In 2008 the UK and the US formed a joint work group for the UK to enter the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program of the US Army and USMC, but barely a few months later it was decided that the JLTV was not the right direction to go for the British Army, albeit exchange of informations continues. 

Among the vehicles considered under OUVS we find the General Dynamics's Eagle IV and DURO IIIP, general purpose variants of the Iveco "Lince" LMV that forms the base of the Panther CLV, the G wagon from Mercedes, the Sherpa from France's Renault and the Thales Australia Copperhead, which is the Single Cab Bushmaster Utility variant. The name Copperhead has since fallen out of use. 

In 2009 the Navistar MXT, which the UK acquired the same year as UOR for Afghanistan naming it Husky, was also shortlisted for OUVS.   

By then, OUVS envisaged two families of vehicles, OUVS Small and OUVS Large: the first had to deliver vehicles with a payload of 1 to 2 tons (then incresed to 2 to 3 tons), and the OUVS Large had to deal with loads from 3 to 5 or six tons. The MXT was selected for evaluation in both classes. 

Bushmaster Single Cab utility vehicle

In any case, in 2011 the NAO Major Projects Report let us know that the MOD had effectively cancelled OUVS. 

The requirement for Operational Utility Vehicle System was reviewed in 2007 by the Army, as lead user, when the need for vehicles with enhanced protection, capacity and mobility was identified. The Single  Statement of User Need stated that ‘Operational Utility Vehicle System would provide a robust, easily  supported system, comprising operational utility vehicles that are able to carry light cargo (up to six tonnes) or small groups of personnel, integrate as many special-to-role systems as possible and which can operate in diverse climatic and topographical conditions worldwide, in order to support and contribute to land (including land air) and littoral manoeuvre operations’. This capability would be a key supporting enabler for offensive combat operations providing the following roles; unit level logistic cargo vehicle, systems carrier, mobile command, liaison and personnel transport.

Mainly aimed at replacing Pinzgauers and Land Rovers in their many variants, OUVS had actually been suspended well before PR11, mainly because (despite trialing well-protected vehicles such as Bushmaster and Eagle IV) in its original form OUVs mandated pretty much no protection for the new vehicles.

OUVS indeed called for 8500 new vehicles pretty much as like-for-like replacements for Land Rover and Pinzgauers: soft skinned, cheap (97.000 pounds each desired price) vehicles with no mine/IED protection.

Already during 2010 it was realized that such an approach was unacceptable and clashed with the reality of modern operations, and protection requirements were added, even if this of course meant the cost increased fivefold and the number of vehicles to be procured dropped significantly. A 2-years deferral was also imposed.

Prior to PR11, OUVS was expected to be resurrected in 2012, for an entry in service not later than 2018. However, Planning Round 2011 actually removed OUVS from the programme altogether, "re-scoping" the requirement, with the outcome of the work done on OUVS up to that point forming the basis for the Multi Role Vehicle- Protected Programme. 

The NAO report said that it was planned for Multi Role Vehicle - Protected to commence Concept stage during Financial Year 2015/2016.

Luckily, the Pre-Concept trials and activities have actually already begun, and we can hope for an earlier, faster progress of this important program, which will have its own Initial Gate and Main Gate approvals in the coming years.

The SLV Team has been already conducting trials on several vehicles at Millbrook, with a study and comparison of candidate platforms planned for "the week after DVD 2012" which took plane on 20 and 21 June. If there have not been changes to the schedule, the comparative trials should have already happened, but unfortunately at the moment i've been unable to get a confirmation: there's not much publicity around this program yet, which is both a good and a bad thing. The trial was/is meant to determine the range of candidate vehicles, in the 5 to 15 tons range, that offered the desired protection and mobility levels and sufficient modularity to be suitable for the realization of the multiple variants the Army needs. Another important requirement is that the vehicle should have an Unit Price Cost of 250.000 pounds.

This activity is an early phase, a "pre-concept" study. Indeed, Multi Role Vehicle Protected does not expects to reach Main Gate before 2016, so we are at a starting point.

According to the MOD, the MRV(P) is not going to be employed for Rapid Reaction Forces, namely the Airborne Task Force and Commando amphibious brigade, which will need a vehicle which is lighter and more agile. However MRV(P) would support the rest of the formations, which means the thick of the Army. The vision is for one vehicle to fulfil all roles, using plug-and-play communications and flexible seating layouts, so to give birth to all variants needed, which include:

- Command and communications post vehicle,
- Command and liaison vehicle,
- General purpose vehicle – cargo,
- General purpose vehicle – pax,
- Light gun towing vehicle.

Other variants, such as the Future Protected Multi-Role Battlefied Ambulance, would be based on the same mechanics if possible.  

The presence of a Command and Liaison variant is significant: the Panther CLV covers (in theory) this role, so the Army might be intentioned to retire it early if MRV(P) progresses successfully.

Although there are not yet Key User Requirements (KURs) listed for the MRV(P), as the final list of requirements has still to be agreed and published, the MOD's list of current indicative wishes is the following:

- Base Vehicle, Passenger Carriage Variant: crew of 3 (Driver, Commander, Gunner) and 6 passengers

- Base Vehicle, Cargo Variant: crew of 3 and payload greater than 2500 kg, with good towing capacity and 20% growth margin

- Unladen mass inferior to 14.000 kg, less than 10.000 if C130 air-portability will be required (unlikely)

- Turning circle inferior to 17 meters

- Width < 2.5m Medium Mobility
- Power to weight ratio > 20 hp/t at the wheels Medium Mobility
-  Ground pressure < 450Kpa Medium mobility
-  Ground clearance > 240mm Medium Mobility
- Ballistic threshold protection (Stanag 4569) ? level 2 Objective level 3
- Blast threshold protection (Stanag 4569) ? level 2a/2b Objective level 3a/3b
- Growth Potential. The platform design must incorporate adaptable vehicle architecture to allow the following capabilities to be integrated into the platform:

— Open architecture communication information system,
— Generic vehicle architecture level 2,
— Fitted for electronic counter measures,
— Fitted for bowman,
— Fitting of protect weapon system.  

They are not trivial requirements, especially considering the desired unit price. What might be the competitors? 

The Navistar MXT might have some cards to play, depending on how the Army is satisfied by its performances. The fact that 327 are in service as of June 2012 (out of orders placed for at least 351: battle losses?) is a relevant factor, and the Army might well decide that sticking with something that's already around is budgetarily the most acceptable solution. The Army already has an Ambulance Husky, a Command Post and an Utility variant, and now Navistar has added a Light Recovery Vehicle variant which the British Army might soon order, for supporting not just Husky, but Jackal and Foxhound and other vehicles in that weight range as well. 

Navistar offers an "APC" variant with rear-doors and seating for 10 men as well.  

When it was acquired, Husky was indeed hailed as a product of OUVS, even though it was procured effectively as UOR. 

It does not exactly meet the requirements outlined above, but it is far from automatically out of the game. Being already part of the Army might prove a big, big advantage.

For sure, Supacat has sent in Millbrook their SPV400 vehicle for trials and evaluation. They already proposed the vehicle for the Light Patrol Protected Vehicle requirement The SPV400 is a 4x4 vehicle carrying a crew of 2 plus 4 dismounts, on an architecure very similar to that of Foxhound, but Supacat has already been working on a 6x6, three axle variant, which could provide a suitable mechanical base for all what MRV(P) asks.

Penmann's suitably named Multi Role Vehicle Protected family of vehicles, in 2 and 3 axle configurations, are also likely to be aiming very seriously to selection for the MOD's requirement.

Foxhound would appear to be out of the competition, if not for other reasons then because of price: with the LPPV costing 270 million pounds per 300 vehicles, even if the amount includes an unspecified amount of spares, it is hard to imagine how variants developed from it could ever fit in the 250.000 pounds unitary cost.

Another defeated Foxhound rival might return for a second try at a MOD Contract, in the form of the Zephyr vehicle, from Creation UK. They have already produced and demonstrated a 12 tons 6x6 vehicle which is more than suited for being kitted out for all needed roles, offering a overhead weapon position and a 4 tons payload. Seating for 12 men can be provided. Protection levels are, in theory, compliant to at least the threshold requirement, and improvements are not to be excluded.

The Zephyr 6x6 is already a solid reality.

 

From outside the UK, a potential bidder is Thales Australia, with the Bushmaster vehicle, which indeed was a very serious contender for the Operational Utility Vehicle System (OUVS) requirement that was the earlier incarnation of MRV(P). Bushmaster is a proven vehicle, developed in many variants, used actively on the battlefield by now by several years, and it is not unknown to the UK armed forces, as 24 Bushmaster Infantry Mobility Vehicles were acquired under a UOR requirement for use by the SAS in Iraq.  

Over 800 Bushmaster vehicles have been acquired by Australia alone, in several variants: troop transport, Mortar mobility (the mortar is not fired from inside the vehicle, it has to dismount, but up to 5 men and 50 bombs and the mortar are easily carried), Direct Fire (transports a fire support section with HMG, Carl Gustav recoilless rifle, Javelin AT missiles and/or other weaponry), ambulance, engineer vehicle and Command Post. Some 100 more have been acquired by the Dutch.

An IED variant with rummaging/interrogating mechanical arm has also been prepared, along with 2 logistical variants. A variant specifically kitted for transport of a 4-man Air Defence section with RBS70 missile firing point is also available. An ISTAR variant with mast-mounted sensors was also showcased.

The Bushmaster was very much appreciated by the MOD during OUVS trials: so much so that, effectively, one of the two logistical variants was developed specifically for the UK, by Thales in collaboration with the MOD. This is the Utility Dual Cab variant, which comes with a large cabin with four side-opening passenger doors and seating for 2 crew and up to 6 passengers, while still having at the back a 5 square meters payload bed for 3 tons capacity. This variant would be pretty much perfect as L118 Light Gun Towing vehicle, as it would be able to sit the whole gun crew under armor, tow the gun and carry at least one ammunition pallet. 

Bushmaster Dual Cab

 

The other logistic variant is the Single Cab, which seats a crew of 2 and has a 9.4 square meters flatbed for a payload of over 5 tons which can be fitted with container hoist to take a "two-thirds" ISO container. It can be fitted with a tipper loadbed, or with a crane for self-loading. Thales offers many options.

Changes for accommodating a baseline crew of 3 should be possible.    

The Bushmaster is good at towing, too, so much so that the Australians have procured at least 184 8-tons trailers compatible with the Troop Carrying variant. It can pull and recovery vehicles up to 15.000 kg in weight. 

The command post seats 6 men including driver and optional seat for 7th man. It has additional radio racks, mapboards, space for cryptographic units, a generator and provision for exploitation of external energy source for long-term operations. 

Photos of the various Bushmaster variants, including shots of the insides, are available here.

A well loaded Bushmaster troop carrier with trailer, RWS on the front and GPMG pintle mount at the rear hatch.

The Ambulance variant, in addition to driver, commander and medical attendant positions, accommodate one permanent stretcher position with loading mechanism and four walking wounded patients, seated, each with their own drip, oxygen and regulator.
Alternatively the four walking wounded positions can be field converted in minutes to another stretcher position. Both stretchers are protected and isolated so well that a patient even severely wounded will survive even a mine blast.

The engineering/Pioneer vehicle is essentially a mobile workshop with workbenches, trays, a pulldown awning, and a generator to support the operation of power tools. It carries 5 men, with a 6th seat as optional. One man is the driver. 

The vehicle is a large 4x4 with V hull and good protection levels, with an overall length of 7.18 metres, width of 2.48 metres (within the requirement, albeit barely) and height of 2.65 metres. Track is 2.1 metres and wheelbase is 3.9 metres. A C-130J can airlift a single Bushmaster, while up to eight Bushmasters can be carried by a single C-17. Ground clearance is 430 mm under hull, and the vehicle can ford water depths of 1.2 meters without preparation; the vehicles handles a gradient of up to 60 per cent, an approach angle of 40 degrees and a departure angle of 38 degrees, more than meeting "medium mobility" requirements. The 300 liters fuel tank gives a 800 km autonomy on road. 

To improve blast protection, a 270-litre water tank is mounted internally, beneath the floor for added protection and to lower the vehicle’s centre of gravity. Armour-protected energy absorbent seats provide additional protection against spinal injuries, and multi-point seat belt harnesses are provided
to specific customer requirements. 

The Troop Carrier comes with a large hatch on top, in the front, which can take a Protected or Remote Weapon Station, while in the back two large rectangular hatches are provided for top cover and situational awareness, with pintle mounts available to install further manned machine guns for self defence and fire support. Unladen, the Bushmaster weights between 11.000 and 12.500 kg depending on the variant, again fitting within the indicative requirement.

Turning circle is 17.7 meters, so it goes over the requirement, but perhaps something can be done about it, or the requirement can be relaxed. 

A Bushmaster on operations shows the CROWS RWS on the front hatch and a GPMG pintle mounted on the side, at one of the two rear hatches. Another mount can be installed on the other side.

The Bushmaster ISTAR with mast-mounted sensors.

The Bushmaster is a very interesting vehicle family, with a solution (already developed) for pretty much all needs of a full spectrum military force. Hopefully it will be given proper consideration again as part of MRV(P), as it seems to be a very attractive solution. The cost of the Bushmaster is relatively low for a vehicle of its class at between 500 and 650.000 australian dollars depending on the variant (ambulance seems to be the most expensive), but not quite cheap enough to meet the 250.000 pounds wish of the MOD without some very real difficulty. Still, there's good chances that a Bushmaster offering would be quite advantageous in terms of cost nonetheless, because i have a lot of doubts on the possibility of anyone managing to meet the requirements for just 250.000 pounds apiece, sincerely. 

For sure, the Multi Role Vehicle (Protected) is a very important programme for the army's future, and one to keep surveyed as things progress.   

100 more Foxhounds on the way

A new 400 million pounds investment in C-IED technology has been announced by the MOD, and this includes an order (still being negotiated with Force Protection, now a branch of General Dynamics) for making "around 100" more Foxhound vehicles available to the british army.

200 million pounds are going into C-IED technology, but the MOD is not announcing what this package will include: it could be new jammers, possibly body-worn, but it could also include drones with ground-penetrating radars and perhaps even portable, backpack-sized mine-clearance kits. These last are a soldier portable, miniaturized variant of the Pythoon of the Royal Engineers, so to speak, and include a rocket dragging a line charge through a mine field to detonate any weapon and create a safe path across the field. All of these devices are being used by US forces, and have been evaluated, at different times, by the MOD.

400 millions - 200 millions gives 200 millions, though, and unless the Foxhound just got more expensive (the order already in place, for 180 millions is acquiring 200 vehicles), something does not fit in. Where is the rest of the money going...?  In fact, 100 Foxhound should cost around 90 million pounds, and ideally less, since the rule should be that the more vehicles are ordered and built, the less they should cost.

 

It remains a good item of news, even though it would really help to know more about what kind of C-IED kit is being acquired, and it would be interesting to learn which Foxhound variants are being acquired: the current order for 200 should entirely be about the Patrol variant, a fully enclosed vehicle with a crew of 2 and seats for 4 dismounts seating face to face in the back. The Foxhound, however, has since demonstrated the Utility module, with a pick-up cargo bed at the back, and also the Fire Support module, which turns the vehicle in a much more protected and potentially even better armed Jackal (the FS Foxhound module offers two more weapon mounts compared to the Jackal or Land Rovers WMIK). 

It was hoped that the first order for 200 Foxhounds would be followed by a second batch order, again of 200 vehicles, but i honestly had grown worried about the effective likelyhood of it ever coming, so that even 100 would be better than i expected.

DefenseNews reports that the 100 new Foxhounds are being funded from the core defence budget, and not anymore from UOR money, and it also specifies that the requirement for a third tranche of Foxhounds is being assessed.

It is likely, i dare guessing, that this third tranche will be evaluated as part, or in relation to, the effort that was, until Planning Round 2011, known as Operational Utility Vehicle System and has now been renamed the Multirole vehicle protected.  

The Australian army, which trialed the Foxhound for its LAND 1300 requirement, recently chose to pursue a national solution by continuing development of the Hawkei instead: this has been a bitter blow to the Foxhound, since the contract is worth 1300 vehicles in Australian planning, and a win would have been a massive boost.

The 1300 figure also gives an idea of the numbers that the British Army would actually need for the future (Foxhound has always been a "core" programme procured with UOR methods, not an Afghan-specific programme with a 2015 best-before date) to equip the infantry properly. But at 900.000 pounds each, the Foxhound is very expensive for thinking of buying thousands, especially if export orders do not come to help make the programme economically viable: for comparison, a Panther CLV comes at 450.000 pounds inclusive of Theatre Entry modifications and Remote Weapon Station on top, and around 300.000 pounds for a more basic configuration.

I know that the British Army has not been very happy with the Panther, and i honestly struggle to understand the reasons. Inside it is cramped due to the Bowman installation, but can it really be THAT bad as it is suggested on the internet, when the rest of the world loves the vehicle so much? The Panther is built on the Iveco Lince jeep, which offers NATO standard protection levels from 3 to 4 depending on configuration, and it has saved countless lives in Afghanistan, in particular with the italian contingent. The Lince is heavily used and has been hit by IEDs and attacks very frequently, but save for extreme cases (last October a Lince was destroyed and another heavily damaged with the death of 6 of the 10 Italian soldiers that had been aboard of the two jeeps, when a Toyota used as bomb and filled with an estimate 150 kg of explosives hit the convoy), it has protected the men inside very well. And better it would have done had the Italian army provided protected turrets and RWSs earlier: the gunners, horribly exposed to man machine guns without much of even a gunshield, have been injured frequently, but only in 2010 an order for 80 RWSs and enclosed turrets was finally placed.

The Lince has been produced in the thousands for Italy and has also been widely exported (401 to the UK, several hundreds to Belgium, Austria, Norwey and other european countries, and even 1755 to be produced on licence in Russia).

The Panther CLV was procured not as a patrol protected vehicle, originally, but as a command and scout vehicle. Contract was for 401 vehicles with options for a further 400. Of the 401 vehicles purchased (for 166 million pounds), 326 vehicles are fitted with a BAE Systems ENFORCER Overhead Weapon Station (OWS) (Group 2 Panther) and 75 are fitted for but not with the OWS (Group 3). Panther was the first British Army front line vehicle to feature a health and usage monitoring system (HUMS). The data gathered will help to increase vehicle availability and reduce support costs.

In April 2008 the MoD awarded BAE Systems Global Combat Systems a £28 million contract to guarantee spares availability and reduce cost of ownership to the UK MoD for a five-year period. Under it, BAE Systems is required to provide 90 per cent availability of spare parts plus technical support to field units.

In May 2009, the Panther CLV was pressed into service in Afghanistan after successful hot weather trials in Oman and in Afghanistan itself. These Panthers were given a Theatre Entry Standard update by BAE system, including larger roof hatches, a rear view camera for enhanced situational awareness, protected engine compartment, new rear cargo pod and electronic devices to counter improvised explosive devices, under a 20 million pounds contract. A standard Lince comes with seats for 5, but on the Panther this goes down to 4, and the Bowman takes away a lot of space making even these four seats quite cramped. 

The upgrade began with the delivery of 73 TES kits, each made up by some 39 components. It is unclear if only those 73 vehicles were modified; some internet sources say that the upgrade was extended to "most" of the fleet, even though 67 vehicles received TES treatment in the first batch. The cost of TES kits would bring the total unit cost of fight-ready Panther vehicles with RWS, IED jammers etc at a total of around 700.000 pounds each (for 73 vehicles, long-term support cost excluded. That works out at around 14.000 pounds per year per each of the 401 Panthers).  

Panther originally was to be used in the following main roles:

Scout

Manoeuvre Support Battlegroup Close Reconnaissance

Manoeuvre Support Battlegroup Mortar Fire Controller and Forward Observation Officer

Battery Reconnaissance Officer

Utility

Liaison Officers for Armoured, Armoured Recce and Armoured Infantry Units

Commander’s vehicle for Engineer Troops, Anti-Tank, Mortar and supporting fire platoons

REME

Asset co-ordination

Rebroadcast on BattleGroup nets and Regimental Signal Officers

Route proving for Close and General Support Engineer units

Some 13 to 15 roles within the army are covered by Panther, and some vehicles went to the RAF Regiment as well. Indeed, when in 2009 it was first deployed to Afghanistan, the RAF Regiment and the Army's Close Support Logistics Regiment were the first users. 

The fuel consumption of a fully kitted-up Panther vehicle when used on a surfaced road is estimated to be 6 km/ltr when travelling at a constant speed of 80 km/h. The off-road consumption is estimated to be 2 km/ltr.

During acceptation trials, the Panther was trialed against 6 kg AT mines, and it was verified that the crew would survive the hit. The requirement for Panther was to carry a crew of 1+3 plus kit.

The Iveco Lince in its standard variant carries 1+4. The Lince Light Multirole Vehicle is marketed in two main versions: the standard 3.2-metre-wheelbase variant that carries a 2.3-tonne payload and a new 3.5-metre, 2.5-tonne version. The latter can be fitted with either the standard four-door cab, with an extended rear stowage pod, or a short two-door cab that allows various modules to be fitted on the rear, such as Ambulance module, as ordered by the italian army.

Depending on the threat the LMV can be deployed as a soft-skinned vehicle or with one of three - light, medium or heavy - protection kits fitted to the crew cell or citadel. The modular armour system uses an innovative suite of applique panels, supplied by Germany's IBD Deisenroth Engineering, that are placed between the vehicle's inner and outer skins. The Light kit provides Stanag 4569 Level 1 (5.56 mm and 7.62 mm ball ammunition) protection while the Heavy kit boosts protection to Level 4 (14.5 mm AP ammunition). A multi-layered undercarriage structure beneath the crew citadel provides protection against mine blasts, and this can be enhanced by fitting a blast shield to protect against anti-tank mines. Iveco is working to further enhance protection against buried bombs. Trials have also been conducted with IBD's AMAP Active Defence System to defeat attacks from rocket-propelled grenades and similar threats. 

The Iveco LMV in the trials was brought to Ballistic protection STANAG 4569 Level 4 (STANAG 4569 Level 3+ for the windows and windshield), with Blast protection STANAG 4569 Level 2b/3b underbelly and Level 3a/4a for the wheel house. At 140 kg, the AMAP-ADS installation includes sensor-countermeasure modules arranged all around the vehicle. A processor determines the type and the trajectory of the approaching target. Subsequently a countermeasure module close to the calculated impact point is activated. This countermeasure ejects "directed energy" destroying or disrupting the approaching threat so that it cannot penetrate the vehicle. The overlapping sectors of the sensor-countermeasure modules enable the system to defeat multiple-attacks (in the trials multiple RPGs were successfully countered) and its incredibly fast reaction time makes it possible to react to threats as close as 10 meters.  

For the Panther, Universal Engineering created a new high mobility trailer as well, the XM Panther, which uses the same wheels and tires. It is designed to provide a stable and safe high mobility base for use with a wide range of demountable bodies tailored for specific roles and payloads. 

Mobility trials for a Panther with its trailer

The Foxhound, hopefully, will in time gain a share of the market and deliver even greater performance, but it is imperative that its price drops. It will be interesting, in this sense, to see the terms of the new contract for this second british batch. It will also have to live up to its promises: as it stands, the Foxhound is not yet in action, and all its awesomeness exists only on paper.

Another reason why i honestly didn't expect a follow-on order so soon.

A welcome news, but much remains to be known, verified, and there's much more work to do.